[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Standardisation of the name of the patching targets included in debian/rules.

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 08:14:35PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:10:41AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > I find personnaly patch/unpatch more easy to understand, but YMMV...
> I think (hope) that no one will be able to find a reason why the two
> target should *not* be called "patch" / "unpatch". They are IMO the only
> 2 that people will be able to guess out of the blue.
> So please go for patch/unpatch.

An unpatch target might be problematic.  There're packages with patches
that touch the upstream Makefile, and calling 'make unpatch' before
'make clean' can break things; of course the clean target can depend on
patch, but this seems to complicate things.  Why not simply do the
unpatch in the clean target?

This is what I use in packages I maintain:

patch: deb-checkdir patch-stamp
        for i in `ls -1 debian/diff/*.diff || :`; do \
          patch -p1 <$$i || exit 1; \
        touch patch-stamp

clean: deb-checkdir deb-checkuid
        $(MAKE) clean $(OPTS)
        test ! -e patch-stamp || \
          for i in `ls -1r debian/diff/*.diff || :`; do patch -p1 -R <$$i; done
	rm -f patch-stamp [...]

Regards, Gerrit.

Reply to: